Case 1:10-cv-00541-ABJ Document 26 Filed 05/27/11 Page 76 of 103 36 States and are not independently enforceable. 33 U.S.C. § 1314(a)(1). See, e.g., City of Albuquerque v. Browner, 865 F. Supp. 733, 738 (D.N.M. 1993) (“States are free to draw upon EPA’s recommended water quality criteria, but are equally free to use other criteria for which they have sound scientific support.”)

EPA promulgates nationally applicable technology-based effluent limitations and standards governing the discharge of pollutants under 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b). Specifically, EPA develops “guidelines” for effluent limitations applicable to existing sources based on certain factors set forth in 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2)(B), and establishes new source performance standards under 33 U.S.C. § 1316(a)(1). EPA establishes limitations and standards for specific industries after conducting an in- depth analysis of each industry, the wastestreams to be regulated, and a technology or technologies that represent the statutorily prescribed level of control for each wastestream.

8 Filed 12/21/16 Page 6 of 53 -v- 33 U.S.C. § 1313 .................................................................................................. 1, 36 33 U.S.C. § 1313(a) ................................................................................................. 17 33 U.S.C. § 1313(b)(2)............................................................................................. 17 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c) ..........................................................................................passim 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A) ......................................................................... 2, 3, 17, 21 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(3) .......................................................................................... 3 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4) ............................................................................................... 3 33 U.S.C. § 1314(a) ................................................................................................. 18 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b) ................................................................................................. 18 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 3 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B) ....................................................................................... 18 42 U.S.C. § 7409 ...................................................................................................... 18 42 U.S.C. § 7412(n)(1)(A) ....................................................................................... 21 Statutes-State Mont. Code Ann. § 75-5-103(2) ................................................................................ 5 Mont. Code Ann. § 75-5-313 ................................................................................... 13 Mont. Code Ann. §75-5-313(5)(b)....................................................................... 6, 31 Other Authorities 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d) ...................

To assist states in adopting water quality standards that wil meet with EPA's approval, EP A may develop and publish criteria for water quality that accurately reflect "the latest scientific knowledge." 33 U.S.C. § 1314(a). B. CW A Section 404 Permits Section 404(a) of the CWA authorizes the Secretar of the Ary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to "issue permits. . . for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites."

The ESA, however, is a statutory scheme that regulates both the government and private parties (compare ESA Section 7(a)(2) and ESA Section 9), in much the same way as the Clean Water Act does. Indeed, in Sierra Club, plaintiffs sued pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2), which permits citizen suits against the EPA Administrator for relief pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c) and 33 U.S.C. § 1314(l), which relate to actions that only the EPA can take. In short, the ESA and the Clean Water Act are comparable, and Sierra Club is on point.

elopment Agency of City of Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 1542, 1544 n.1 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and concluding that the district court properly considered public documents submitted by the defendant without converting motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (conversion to motion for summary judgment for consideration of matters outside the pleading applies to Rule 12(b)(6) motions or Rule 12(c) motions, not Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction). Case 2:16-cv-02960-MCE-DB Document 14-1 Filed 05/10/17 Page 3 of 16 EPA’S MEMO ISO ITS MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SCAP v. U.S. EPA (SCAP II), No. 2:16-cv-02960-MCE-DB 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants that shall include the factors” that must be provided in NPDES permit applications. 33 U.S.C. § 1314(h). B. Whole Effluent Toxicity (“WET”) Testing Whole effluent toxicity (“WET”) is defined as “the aggregate toxic effect of an effluent measured directly by a toxicity test.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. WET tests are used to determine effects of toxicity on aquatic organisms, both the acute (severe) and chronic (less severe) effects.

.....................................................................................3 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A) ...............................................................................................................3 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d) ...................................................................................................................9, 14 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(A) ...............................................................................................................5 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(C) .......................................................................................5, 16, 17, 19, 23 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(2) ..............................................................................................................6, 15 33 U.S.C. § 1313(e)(3)(C) ...............................................................................................................6 Case 1:16-cv-01861-JDB Document 10 Filed 04/06/17 Page 5 of 38   v 33 U.S.C. § 1314(a)(2) .....................................................................................................................5 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1) .....................................................................................................................4 33 U.S.C. § 1362(3) .........................................................................................................................3 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12) .......................................................................................................................4 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14) .......................................................................................................................4 Other Authorities 43 Fed. Reg. 60,662 (Dec. 28, 1978) ...............................................................................................5 D.C. Mun.